If you follow the SSSC fitness to practise hearings you will have come across cases where, by the time everything is resolved, the worker will have moved out of the field of social services.
And then there will be others who will have moved nowhere. Now despite all the pledges that we are now in a ‘woke’ society, I personally haven’t found that those in the 60-plus age bracket actually have employers banging on their door.
I was determined to put my experience to good use when I left Aberlour but the on/off imposition of sanctions by the SSSC on my registration meant I was almost unemployable in my field.
So, for the best part of two years, until I reached my retirement age, I had almost no income and no benefits; if you want to equate that to a fine before you even reach your prosecution, that’s around a £50,000 tariff. Add to that another 18 months to two years after the 'verdict' then you are looking at £100,000 in lost earnings. The time, the tariff and public vilification puts the SSSC fitness to practise hearing process on a level with a serious criminal case in the sheriff court, with the exclusion of the jail sentence option (thank goodness!).
But the SSSC, operating under civil procedure, is allowed to ignore the guidelines of the Scottish Sentencing Council and "go it alone" in terms of deciding its "sentence". It is another example where the SSSC is above, or outside, accepted Scottish legal procedures.
It was a humiliating time, reaching a peak with the Children’s Panel being notified that I was a danger to the public. Believe it or not, I was even asked if I would still be allowed access to my grandchildren! That’s how horrendous the experience was.
Now, if only I had accepted the conditions on my registration…
But this is a bewildering aspect of the SSSC processes. While part of the Scottish legal system, granted, civil not criminal, it is able to ignore the safeguards that are legally in place, probably because a Panel decision is not a verdict – though it can equate to £50,000 in lost earnings and the end of your career.
It would seem no matter how much information you provide for the investigation into you, that can be decided as inadequate by the investigator, and you have no recourse to challenge that ruling, other than going to a higher court.
I’d really be interested to hear from others on this because I was convinced I received the toughest verdict, sorry ‘decision’, available, because I wanted my case to go to hearing.
While I am only too aware my persistent challenging of the SSSC processes has probably done me - and my family - more harm than good (including this blog), surely anyone who felt they needed to explain what led to their actions would find this statement from a Decision unfair and offensive: "Whilst you had not disputed the facts of the events... you had nevertheless obliged the Panel to proceed to a full hearing."
Surely you have a duty, and the basic right, to give your side of events? And isn't demanding the issues go before a hearing after being assured there has been a full investigation a bizarre choice for someone who had simply made everything up? Someone who simply fabricated the story of a critical and negative working environment when every single employee apparently revelled in a warm, caring and compassionate culture, created and nurtured, as well as collaboratively endorsed, by the only two witnesses called - the same two at the heart of my complaint?
In hindsight, I would say my challenges to the SSSC pursuer had me down as probably obstinate or obstructive but I found it very difficult communicating with someone who apparently knew so little about my profession and my job.
The response from SSSC chief executive Lorraine Gray to this particular complaint is, again, given at the end. Once more it is a referral to a higher court. That Article 6 option that means if there is an appeal option then what went before it can't be queried and doesn't need explained.
Complaint 5: The restrictions and conditions on my ability to work
I strongly believe all registrants should be aware of the autonomy and inconsistency with due legal process that the SSSC permits in the practise of its case holders.
In a Notice of Decision issued by the SSSC, the Council gives clear and prominent indication of the right of appeal, which is through the Sheriff Court. This indicates, and implies, a judicial progression through the process. It should be made clear on the SSSC website and through all correspondence with workers facing allegations that while the SSSC concedes to the higher authority of the Sheriff Court it does not follow or adhere to the sentencing guidelines as set out by the Scottish Sentencing Council.
These guidelines, issued from Parliament House, apply to the legal process in Scotland yet a decision made by the SSSC is not bound by these. However, the process of appeal refers that decision to a system that does adhere to them. The SSSC does not admit to registrant or superior court, that the guidelines can be ignored by any SSSC case holder.
Again, I have no option but to cite my own case, which, given the acquiescence of the panel, chaired by an acting Sheriff, would indicate this is normal practice.
I believe the conditions imposed by the SSSC on me pending my hearing were manifestly unreasonable as I was unable to undertake the basic duties of a social worker which I was qualified to do.
As a woman in her 60s it is difficult to find employment without such conditions and these terminated my career prematurely which has had a significant impact on my psychological well-being.
In retrospect, my decision to inform the SSSC case holder - as part of my engagement with the process - that I was considering agency work prompted the SSSC reaction of proposing conditions that meant, in effect, that no agency could put me on its books. Thus, effectively, ending my working life.
Using the summary of factors published by the Scottish Sentencing Council, my complaint centres on:
Nature of the offence: There is no judge in a fitness to practise hearing therefore the nature of the offence and how serious that offence is, remains the sole responsibility of an SSSC case holder who may have no qualifications or experience in a given field.
At the very outset, the gravity of any allegation needs to be investigated from all sides. I would argue, in my case, this was not done. Key front line senior managers and witnesses were not contacted, resulting in a skewed and inaccurate allegation at the very outset.
Culpability: Only from the detailed investigation of the above can that case holder form a clear perspective of the culpability of a worker. If that first stage is not given the importance it merits, this second stage is virtually meaningless and based primarily on an ill-informed, unqualified and subjective perspective.
Protection of the public and deterrence: Again, if the initial examination of the nature of the offence is not carried out with due diligence and care, then the grounds on the need to protect the public are not based on fact but the subjective interpretation of a restricted analysis of the complaint.
In my case, the first allegation refers to a failure “to progress a child protection concern”. This is totally true in that I did indeed fail to complete the required paperwork. On the first occasion I provided a tape recording which clearly indicated what was happening on that day, and in response to my seeking information from my manager on that same case, and on the second, which occurred three working days later by commencing sick leave within 24 hours of the required 48-hour period. On the third occasion, I had no computer of my own, it was broken. Aberlour states it was replaced but to my knowledge has not been able to prove this.
However, verbal communication with the relevant case holders had taken place. If the SSSC had spoken to the social workers and the senior managers dealing with the case in question this would have been confirmed with a simple phone call.
The SSSC chose not to do that and, instead, portrayed the allegation as a ‘cold call’ on a child at risk. This is simply not true. The most basic steps of a preliminary investigation, contacting the social work team responsible for the case, would have shown this. Why was this elementary step not taken?
Aggravation and Previous Convictions: These guidelines issued by the Scottish Sentencing Council were not relevant to my case, though I would argue that the SSSC acted in a manner that I was behaving in a way deemed aggravating in that (1) Conditions were imposed on my registration, effectively stopping me from practising as a social worker while the investigation was under way, thereby seriously affecting my livelihood; (2) Conditions were removed from my registration which would have allowed me to undertake agency work and secure employment; (3) SSSC wished to impose Conditions which would effectively terminate my employment again.
I challenged these Conditions, offered to me again on the morning of my hearing; some 10 hours later when I had spoken approximately 800 words through brief questions to two hostile witnesses and a brief statement, the SSSC equated me with those responsible on multiple charges of manslaughter and murder. I was subsequently removed from the Register.
Personal circumstances: The SSSC at no time considered any of my personal circumstances, did not offer a single face-to-face meeting and ignored all the Scottish Sentencing Council recommendations on establishing facts regarding home background, current living situation, finance or age; effect on family/employment.
The only circumstance taken into account by the SSSC was on health, not on my ability to work, but access to my GP regarding my health at the time of the incidents under investigation. This came with the warning from the SSSC that I could be removed from the Register if I failed to provide this, despite their having an Occupational Health report clearly stating I was fit to work, and only anxiety about working for Aberlour Child Care Trust prevented that.
Opportunities for rehabilitation: The imposition, removal and attempted re-imposition of conditions on my registration thwarted all my attempts to prove my capability as a social worker.
The SSSC was, however, interested in my selection and training for the Children’s Panel and considered whether that training would merit the removal or revision of the re-imposed conditions. The quality of training did in fact remove the necessity of undertaking child protection training - suggesting strongly that I no longer presented a risk in this regard. I had advised the SSSC that I had become a panel member because I believed it was important as part of my engagement in the process. The SSSC would not have been aware of it otherwise. After the hearing, the SSSC informed Children’s Hearings Scotland that the public should be protected from me, and I was forced to resign. I was not given the courtesy of being advised that this was to happen until it had been done.
Mitigating factors: The SSSC only gave cursory note to my previous impeccable record; it was acknowledged by myself from the outset that I did indeed breach Data Protection by sending information to my personal email account for personal protection over the harassment and bullying I was experiencing, and concern about the reliability, honesty and psychological well-being of a worker who had forged documentation – a justification dismissed as without grounds by the SSSC and through the removal of evidence.
It was not made clear to the panel that I advocated a police investigation into the circumstances of that breach and was willing to proffer information on serious breaches carried out by management within Aberlour Child Care Trust.
The SSSC chose not to pursue these.
It is also of some import that the SSSC itself chose to breach the Data Protection Act (see Complaint 1) by contacting {Removed} after queries were raised about the SSSC processes for this complaint.
By admitting the second allegation prior to the hearing, and offering mitigating circumstances to the first, I would argue that I cooperated fully with the SSSC, submitted valuable information worthy of serious investigation. Contrary to the Scottish Sentencing Council’s guidelines this proactive approach on my part was used by the SSSC as grounds for an extended sentence, rather than the conditions offered to me by the same caseholder some hours before.
Assisting the prosecutor: The Scottish Sentencing Council states: “If an offender, who has pled guilty to a crime, agrees in writing to help the prosecutor with the investigation, then the judge must take into account how the offender has assisted when deciding the sentence. The judge will give the offender a less severe sentence for helping the prosecution and explain what the sentence would have been otherwise. The sentence can later be reviewed depending on how much help is actually given to the prosecutor. If an offender does not provide what has been promised, the sentence can be made more severe. (But no more severe than it would have been if no agreement to help was in place.)
As far as my case is concerned, I am baffled how the SSSC can criticise my engagement with the process. Certainly, over the 18-month period I grew increasingly frustrated at being kept out of employment and the lack of enthusiasm by the SSSC to actually investigate all aspects of the allegations made against me.
Without the information I provided the case holder would have had a great deal less information available and it was only by SSSC redaction and editing of my statements that it was able to construct its case against me, while ignoring my mitigating circumstances.
The admission by the SSSC that those I claim were responsible for forcing me into an untenable position had come forward with other allegations that it decided not to pursue denied me the opportunity to challenge their behaviour. Fresh grounds were raised and dealt with by SSSC without my knowledge.
Taking all these factors, the SSSC ignored the guidelines of the Scottish Sentencing Council in ensuring a system of natural justice, openness and fairness is employed within its processes.
The SSSC successfully achieved in its decision an extended 'sentence' against myself but its investigation into the nature of the offence and culpability has attributed all blame to myself as one, essentially, rogue worker. I still find that a disturbing conclusion.
It would seem my mistake was to exercise my right to a hearing. I believe that I was punished for doing so, and the outcome would have been different had I accepted the conditions, however unworkable and impractical they were. That is an indisputable fact. In a recent case, for example, publicised on the SSSC website, a social worker who placed children, women, service users and the public at risk because his fitness to practise was impaired over several years, accepted the one SSSC condition which was to write a reflective essay. I am not judging this worker, I do not know what his mitigating circumstances were, but they were clearly taken into account. However, I believe the pervasive lack of logic and consistency within SSSC must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Response from Lorraine Gray, chief executive SSSC
Under this heading, you raise complaints about how the decision was reached. The Decision was reached in terms of our Rules. There is a statutory appeal right to the Sheriff Court.
As with a number of the previous parts of your complaint, the issues you have raised under this part of the complaint do not fall within our Complaints Handling Procedure and you should consider appealing the decision to the Sheriff Court.
Picture: Athree23
No comments:
Post a Comment